In today’s political news - Part 5

7-2-2022

You want change you vote to give the President the tools he needs to do the job.

This idea that the President must lose the majority in the midterms is an urban myth.  He or someday she lose it because the voters stay home.

Elections have consequences and we have reach the point that we have to approach each election as if our democracy depends on it.  Because it does.

“Opinion Abortion activists are wrong to criticize Biden. Here’s why.”

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist

June 29, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Democrats never fail to amaze me with their ability to turn on allies. Too many are indulging in this habit in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal of abortion rights.

The outrage is not that the White House is doing too little to rectify the forced-birth crowd’s barbaric assault on women, as some on the left contend. The real issue is the barbaric assault itself.

The complaints on the left center on two issues: The first is the filibuster in the Senate, which some argue President Biden should be opposing more aggressively. But Biden has no ability to change this political reality. If Democrats want to break the filibuster, they must elect more Democrats to the Senate.

The second has to do with whether the administration can use federal lands or public facilities in states where abortion is illegal to provide the services. Some Democrats are frustrated that the White House hasn’t embraced this.

But the idea is not as easy as it sounds. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement last week that “federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law,” but that only pertains to government doctors (e.g., military doctors) and only to the extent permitted under the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest or that threaten the life of the mother.

This does not allow treatment for the public at large or allow such doctors to perform abortions beyond the Hyde Amendment. Even if a federal government doctor on a federal property were to provide abortion services covered by the Hyde Amendment, the state might still try to go after the doctor’s medical license. (This would then raise an interesting Supremacy Clause, the outcome of which would be uncertain.)

Speaking on use of federal employees to provide abortion services, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Tuesday that “we understand the proposal is well intentioned, but here’s the thing: It could actually put women and providers at risk.” She stressed that “in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees ... could be potentially be prosecuted.” She added that “there’s actually dangerous ramifications to doing this.”

Rather than set up women and doctors for possible prosecution, the administration can take more feasible measures — and it already is.

First, the administration is trying to guarantee access to medication abortions, which make up more than half of all abortions. Garland stated that “the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.” But this only covers state laws that seek to outlaw the medication on safety grounds. It does not protect women from a ban on abortions of any kind.

This approach also raises a licensing problem for doctors. As the New York Times reports, “One complication is that doctors are licensed at the state level, and practicing medicine without a license in another state is a crime, although it can be difficult to decide where a doctor consulting virtually with an out-of-state patient is ‘practicing.’ ”

Second, the Justice Department is seeking to protect the right of women to travel to other states to seek abortions. Garland specified that “under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states.” That could also open one avenue, albeit one not practical for many poor women or minors.

The truth is the federal government’s options currently are very constrained. This battle must be waged in Congress, state legislatures, state courts and in public referenda. Some on the left will take issue with the suggestion that they must “vote harder”; in reality, their marching orders are to organize with the same effectiveness as forced-birth advocates.

There are battles up and down the ballot that can affect the issue: from district attorneys and sheriffs to state lawmakers and governors to the House and Senate. If Democrats succeed, they can codify Roe v. Wade and other privacy rights into law and even reform the Supreme Court, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is attempting to do.

In fact, Democrats are numerically close. If Democrats believe (as I do) that this is a motivating issue for millions of Americans, they should run on a “women’s lives are on the ballot” message. Use that momentum to hold the House and add a couple Democratic senators in the midterms.

One way to energize the fight to preserve abortion access is to characterize it as a fight for other rights at risk of being overturned, such as contraception or gay marriage. The fight to defend Americans’ privacy cannot be won going issue by issue. Instead, there must be a coalition to stand against the Christian nationalist movement to return the country to the 19th century.

Progressive groups that are inviting their base to start fighting with the White House only impair this effort. There is plenty of work ahead, and the forced-birth crowd must face a united front.”

Where do they find these people??

It seems we have a new United States export….

He’s right.  IMO only cowards hide behind masks.

Watch this video.  In the back seat are kids watching a guy in another car start shooting at 3rd car.  Unbelievable.